European Journal of Education Studies ISSN: 2501 - 1111 ISSN-L: 2501 - 1111 Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 doi: 10.5281/zenodo.344919 THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS Yalçın Dileklii Education Faculty, Department of Educational Sciences, Aksaray University, Aksaray, Turkey Abstract: The current study investigates the relationship between critical thinking skills and learning styles of mentally gifted students. The participants were 225 gifted students in Turkey attending Science and Art Centres which are after-school activity centers for mentally gifted students. Participants were 9 -15 years old and were attending secondary schools and high schools. The data were gathered using the Kolb Learning Style Inventory and the Critical Thinking Scale and analyzed using Chi-Square, t test, ANOVA and regression analyses. The findings revealed that gender was not a significant variable for learning styles but it was a significant variable for critical thinking skills. Gifted students had high scores on the Critical Thinking scale. Relationships were also found between gifted students learning styles and their critical thinking skills except in the analysis dimension of the Critical Thinking scale. Gifted students who achieved the highest scores on the scale had assimilating and converging learning styles. Keywords: gifted students, critical thinking, critical thinking disposition, learning styles, modes of learning 1. Introduction The current educational era has witnessed curriculum revolutions in many countries influenced by the constructivist movement. This revolution has also affected all components of education including educational policy, teachers, and schools. The revolution has launched new terms such as learning to learn, Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved. © 2015 2017 Open Access Publishing Group teaching thinking 69 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS skills , and creative thinking . Critical thinking is also one of these terms. This is because, in today s world, an individual is exposed to many new and contradictory ideas and challenging conditions during an ordinary day. From the time one wakes up, one is exposed to many advertisements on TV, the internet, and other media, and in the workplace one is again exposed to many new ideas and offers. Thus, an individual has to decide on many things such as what to buy, where to go on holiday, and which news reports to believe. To choose the best option, one should know how to compare the options and to think deeply; in other words, one should know how to use critical thinking (McKnight, 2000; Kenney, 2013). Despite many curricular reforms, teaching critical thinking has not reached the desired level set out in curriculum goals. Many researchers have tried to discover the reasons for this problem. As noted by Sternberg (1987), many curriculums are doomed to fail to teach critical thinking because they are prepared in advance of classes. Sternberg emphasizes teachers' and learners individual differences. These differences include variations in students learning styles and IQ levels (Demir, 2006; Güven & Kürüm, 2008; Kettler, 2014; Thomson, 2010). In the literature, there are many studies analyzing the relation between critical thinking skills and other variables such as age, gender, teaching and learning styles in general school education. However, there are limited number of studies dealing with the relationship between the learning styles and critical thinking skills of mentally gifted students. This study attempts to answer the question of whether there is a relationship between the critical thinking skills of gifted learners and their learning styles in Turkey. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Critical Thinking (CT) In the literature, there are numerous definitions of critical thinking (e.g. Brookfield, 1987; Kurnaz, 2014, Lipman, 1988; Meyers, 1986). Robert Ennis (1985, p. 45) defined critical thinking as reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or to do . Sternberg , p. defines the term as the mental processes, strategies, and representations people use to solve problems, make decisions, and learn new concepts . Although there are many different definitions of the term, critical thinking and its components were not identified until 1990 by a group of scientists who joined the Dephi Panel managed by Facione in the USA (Facione, 1990). In the Dephi Report critical thinking is defined as self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based Facione, , p. 4). For Facione, critical thinking has six components. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 70 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS The first is interpretation, which means, to comprehend experiences, data, events, judgments, rules and so on Ennis, , p. . The second component of critical thinking is analysis, which means to identify the relationships among events, concepts and the other forms of judgments Demir, . The third component is inference, in the sense of drawing conclusions based on the evidence available (Demir, 2006; Rudd & Baker, 2000). The fourth component is explanation, defined as to justifying an explanation in a coherent, methodical, reasonable way (Lowy, 2014). The fifth component is evaluation which is defined by Facione as the ability to assess the logical strength of the actual or intended inferential relationships among statements, descriptions, questions, situations and so on’’. The sixth component of critical thinking is self-regulation, which is defined as self-consciously to monitor one’s cognitive activities Facione, , pp. -5). Although teaching critical thinking does not guarantee better life conditions for learners in the future, knowing critical thinking enables them to make more accurate decisions affecting the future. Making accurate decision about their lives may make them happier. Teaching critical thinking needs time and effort, and knowing students learning styles makes teaching critical thinking easier (Rayneri, Gerber & Wiley, 2006). Furthermore, knowing a student's learning style and teaching according to the student's learning style help the teacher engage students with the subject (Boydak, 2008; Rudd & Baker, 2000). 2.2 Learning Styles In the last thirty years, many different learning style models have been set; however, Rita Dunn was one of the first to use the concept of a learning style (Dunn & Dunn, . ‚ccording to Dunn, ‛eaudry and Klavas learning styles are learners dominant behaviours during their learning process. Learning styles indicate individual's preferred way of learning or how the individual acquires information an Felder & Brent, 2005, p. 59). Kolb s learning style model is based on his experiential learning theory. Kolb (1981) regards learning styles as the ways in which learners approach learning, and argues that individuals tend to have a preferred learning style. According to Kolb (1984, p. 74), the learning process consists of a four-stage learning cycle. The first stage is Concrete Experience (CE-feeling). At this stage, the learner encounters a new situation or reinterprets an existing experience. This provides the basis for the second stage called Reflective Observation (RO-watching). The learner understands ideas and situations from different points of view; in other words, an individual learner looks European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 71 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS at ideas and situations from several points of view as part of the learning process. In the learning process, the learner relies on patience, objectivity, and careful judgment (Suliman, 2006). Reflective observation is required for ‚bstract Conceptualization (AC - thinking). In this stage, learning involves using theories, logic and ideas, rather than feelings, to understand problems or situations. Typically, a learner relies on systematic planning and develops theories to solve problems. In the final stage the learner applies this new knowledge to a new situation this is called ‚ctive Experimentation (AE- doing) (Smith & Kolb, 1986). When a learner enters the learning process, these four stages are experienced and each stage of the learning cycle is associated with a learning mode - diverging, assimilating, converging, and accommodating (Svinicki & Dixon, 1987). A. Diverging Style: Divergers are sensitive and good observers. They like exploring new ideas. They behave naturally and use imagination to solve problems. They are the best of all the learning mode groups at viewing concrete situations from several different viewpoints. Kolb called this style Diverging because people who use this style perform better in situations that require the generation of ideas (Baymeyer, 2004; Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Divergers have Concrete Experience/Reflective Observer (CE/RO) characteristics (Kolb, 1984). B. Assimilating Style: Assimilators prefer to be concise and to have a logical approach. Ideas and concepts are more important than people. They prefer good, clear explanations rather than practice or application. Assimilators excel at understanding wide-ranging information and organizing it in a clear, logical format (Svinicki & Dixon, 1987). They are primarily interested in ideas, abstract concepts and numbers. Assimilators have Abstract Conceptualization/Reflective Observation (AC/RO) as dominant learning abilities (Kolb, 1984). C. Converging Style: Convergers can solve problems and use their knowledge to find solutions to problems. They like technical tasks and are prone to analytical thinking; however, they generally have difficulties in looking at problems from different perspectives. Convergers like experimenting with new ideas (Kolb, 1984). Their learning style is classified as Abstract Conceptualization/Active Experimenter (AC/AE). D. Accommodating Style: The Accommodating learning style is 'hands-on', and accommodators rely on intuition rather than logic. These learners use other people's analysis, and prefer to take a practical, experiential approach (Koob & Funk, 2002). They prefer to work in teams to complete tasks. They do not like to work systematically and tend not to think analytically. Accommodators have Concrete Experience/Active Experimentation (CE/AE) as dominant learning abilities (Kolb, 1984). A student's mode of learning is one of the important factors that define the instruction given. As gifted European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 72 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS students preferred modes of learning differ from their peers, the teaching methods should be different from the methods used in general education Eriş, Dyer, Myers & . Indeed, applying teaching methods appropriate to students learning style improves students achievements ‚lnesyan, Ghazivakili, et al., 14; Mahmoud, 2012). 2.3 Gifted Education Giftedness and gifted education are not old concepts in education and educators have tried to define the term gifted. The term gifted is generally defined as extraordinary mental performance in children or as higher learning ability in children when compared with their peers (NAGC, 2010). Gifted students generally process information faster than average-ability peers in complex tasks (Roberts, et. al., 1988). When these definitions are considered, it is supposed that gifted children should have an aptitude to think critically. However, the level of critical thinking skill varies between gifted students because of individual differences (Kettler, 2014). The 1970s and 1980s were a period when special curriculums, aiming at developing creativity and critical thinking, were designed for gifted education (Tuttle, Becker & Sousa, 1988). During the same period, some new instructional designs were also prepared in the light of research on the characteristics of the gifted (Reis & Mc Coach, 2000). One of the individual characteristics examined in the research was learning style and another was the critical thinking skills of the gifted. Later, many studies (Dixon et al., 2004; Mahmood, 2012; Schenck & Cruickshank, 2014; Siriopoulos & Pomonis, 2007; Suliman, 2006) looked for relationships between learning style and critical thinking in different fields, such as nursing, engineering, agriculture, primary education İşlekeller, Kettler, . However, only a very limited number of studies dealt with the relationship between teaching critical thinking and the learning styles of gifted children. Although similarities in teaching approaches in gifted education can be described, there are no general hands on activities suitable for every gifted student (Ford, Grantham & Whiting, 2008; Ross, & Wright, 1987) because of their having different cognitive levels and coming from different cultural, socio-economic backgrounds. In these circumstances, it became a priority for educators across the world to define gifted students learning preferences in their own cultures. Roberts, et al. (1988) indicated that as gifted students have different learning preferences than their peers, an enriched curriculum should be applied in regular classes and this enriched curriculum should contain differentiated activities in learning experiences, to help gifted students manage independent study, develop strategies for cooperative learning European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 73 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS and to participate in interdisciplinary activities (Dixon, et al., 2004; Ketler, 2014; Van Tassel-Baska, 1992). 2.4 Gifted Education in Turkey In Turkey, gifted education has flourished during the last two decades. The new model for gifted education has been given a place in the Turkish education system. In this model, students who show signs of being talented during their compulsory education are identified by their teachers. These students are then given two tests. The first is a multiple-choice exam and students who pass then have a right to take a performance test. In the performance test, students IQ levels are determined by Wisc-R, WNW or similar IQ tests whose reliability and validity analyses are made based on a Turkish sample. Students who are gifted attend a Science and Art Center (SAC) at least two days in a week (MNE, 2015). At an SAC, they attend courses according to their defined abilities and study with a mentor up to end of their compulsory education period at the age of 18. The SACs' standards for gifted education advise that to work effectively with identified gifted students, educators need to understand the characteristics of the gifted. ‚s differentiated and enriched curriculums are applied at S‚Cs, knowing students learning styles helps teachers when teaching critical thinking. There is an emphasis on developing critical thinking in both the gifted education program and in the general education program. This study examines whether critical thinking skill levels should be considered when designing differentiated learning activities, and whether this enables educators and curriculum designers to compare the effects of cultural differences in gifted education. Defining gifted students critical thinking skills and learning styles helps to decide upon the nature of gifted education programs. Although the results cannot be generalized to all cultures, it can provide results that are comparable with those of many other cultures. The results may also be helpful in preparing instructional designs for gifted students in other cultures. 3. Method 3.1 Participants The sample of the study consisted of 225 gifted and talented students voluntarily attending two different SACs. In Turkey, there are 83 SACs. 129 (57.3%) of the participants were male and 96 (42,7%) were female. 53 students (23,6%) were 5th grade, 45 (20%) 6th grade, 35 (15.6%) 7th grade and 92 (40.9 %) 8th graders. Their attendance duration at an SAC varied. 50 (22.2%) of them had been attending an SAC for 1 year, 58 European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 74 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS (25.8%) students had been attending an SAC for 2 years and 117 had been attending an S‚C for or more years. Students ages varied from to years. 3.2 Data Collection Tools The present study used the Critical Thinking Skills Scale (CTSS) developed by Demir (2006). The CTSS measures six dimensions of critical thinking. Of these, three dimensions, the analysis, evaluation and inference dimensions, are related to giving answers as true or false in certain situations. For the evaluation dimension, answers were coded as for correct answers and for incorrect answers. The analysis dimension consisted of eight items, the evaluation dimension had nine items and the inference dimension had eight items. Scores for the interpretation and explanation dimensions were based on both four multiple-choice tests. Questions were based on a single text that was used for both tests. In the interpretation dimension, there were 10 items and in the explanation dimension, there were nine items. The last dimension, self-regulation, consisted of 12 items. These dimensions were coded with a Likert-type scale, as 1=never, 2= sometimes and 3= always. The scale used in this study was developed by Demir . In Demir s research, the Pearson correlation values were: .71 for the analysis dimension; .86 for the evaluation dimension; and .70 for the inferences dimension. The K-20 values were: .76 for the interpretation dimension; .77 for the explanation dimension; and .99 for the selfregulation dimension (Demir, 2006). In the present study, the Pearson correlation values were found to be: .74 for the analysis dimension; .83 for the evaluation dimension; and .74 for the inferences dimension. Reliability values were found to be: .81 for the interpretation dimension; .88 for the explanation dimension; and .89 for the selfregulation dimension. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory III was used to define gifted students' learning styles. The inventory, consisting of 12 items, was developed by Kolb (1985) and adapted by Gencel (2007) to Turkish culture. In the Gencel inventory, individuals are tested on how they would respond in 12 different formal learning situations. For each situation, participants are asked to choose from 4 possible learning approaches. In the present study, participants were asked to grade the situations according to their personal preferences on a scale of 1 to 4, where 4 was for the most suitable situation, and 1 was for the least suitable situation. Analyzing their responses, students learning styles were distributed into four categories as concrete experience' CE , 'reflective observation' RO , abstract conceptualization' ‚C and active experimentation' ‚E . The AE score was subtracted from the AC score and the RO score was subtracted from European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 75 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS the AE score, and the results were analyzed according to the scale. At the end of the process, students were labeled as accommodating , diverging , assimilating , or converging'. In addition, the distribution of the students was determined according to the Nine-Region Learning Style Type Grid (Hunt, 1987). The same scale has been used in many studies in Turkey, including Demirbaş & Demirkan, 2007; Ekici, 2013; and Tezci & Ataseven, 2016. In the present study, the following Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficients were found: .76 for the CE dimension; .71 for the RO dimension; .78 for the AC dimension; .84 for the AE dimension; .85 for AC-AE; and .79 for and AE-RO. These values are similar to the values found by Kolb . They are higher than the values found in a previous adaptation study by ‚şkar and Akkoyunlu (1993), but are similar to that of Gencel (2007). 3.4 Data Analysis Descriptive statistics were used to identify the participants levels of critical thinking and learning styles. The Chi-Square and t test were conducted to examine gender differences. An ANOVA test was conducted to examine whether participants responses differed by their learning styles. A Pearson correlation analysis was carried out to examine the inter-relations between the variables of interest. Finally, a regression equation block method was conducted to examine the relative contribution of the factors predicting critical thinking. 4. Findings 4.1 Descriptive Analysis of Learning Styles Students learning style scores' Mean M , Standard Deviation SD and Range R values were analyzed for each item (CE, RO, AC, AE, AC-CE and AE-RO). In addition, students favorite learning styles were defined. The results were shown in Table 1. Table 1: The average raw scale scores and preferred learning styles R M SD Skewness Kurtosis CE 44-14 23.47 5.95 .885 1.004 RO 43-16 29.11 4.98 .138 .471 AC 48-20 33.82 6.48 .512 -.184 AE 45-18 33.60 5.72 -.182 -.191 AC_CE 34 to -14 10.35 10.65 .210 .044 AE_RO 26 to -19 4.49 8.59 -.393 .128 Preferred Accommodating Diverging Assimilating Converging Styles (n=36. 16%) (n=56. 24.9%) (n=77. 34.2%) (n=56. 24.9%) European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 76 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS According to the analysis, the lowest mean (M = 23.47, SD = 5.95) was seen in the CE dimension and the highest mean (M = 33.82, SD = 6.48) was seen in the AC dimension. According to the scores obtained on the learning style scale, the assimilating learning style was the most preferred style (34.2%). Other preferred styles were the converging learning style (24.9%), the diverging learning style (24.9%) and the accommodating learning style (16%). 4.2 Analyses of learning styles according to demographic variables A Chi-square analysis was conducted to define whether students learning styles change according to gender and duration of attendance at an SAC. Table 2: The distribution of gender and duration of attendance at a Science and Art Center by Learning Style Gender Duration of Attendances to SAC Male Female 1 Year 2 Year 3 and more years Accommodator 16 20 9 8 19 Converger 30 26 5 8 43 Diverger 32 24 8 13 35 Assimilator 51 26 11 13 53 Total 129 96 33 42 150 There was no significant difference in learning styles by gender and duration of attendance at an SAC (gender, X2= 5.263, df=3, p=.154; attendance duration at an SAC, X2= 7.564, df=6, p=.272). 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Critical Thinking The highest possible scores on three sub-dimensions of the critical thinking scale were 8 for 'evaluation', eight for 'inferences', 10 for 'interpretation' and 9 for 'explanation', and the lowest possible score was 0 on all three sub-dimensions. For the self-regulation dimension, the highest possible score was 36 and the lowest possible score was 12. Descriptive statistics of the scores taken from critical thinking scale and sub dimensions are given in Table 3. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 77 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS Table 3: Descriptive statistics for the critical thinking scale and its sub-dimensions N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis Analysis 225 5.00 8.00 7.27 .97 -1.020 -.252 Evaluation 225 5.00 9.00 8.18 1.07 -1.069 -.003 Inferences 225 4.00 8.00 7.08 1.05 -.887 -.382 Interpretation 225 3.00 10.00 7.75 1.72 -.364 -.564 Explanation 225 4.00 9.00 7.51 1.35 -.531 -.835 Self-regulation 225 20.00 36.00 30.18 4.14 -.703 -.083 Entire Scale 225 7.67 13.33 11.33 .08 -.524 -.030 According to the analysis, the lowest mean (M = 7,08, SD =1.05) was seen in the interpretation dimension and the highest mean (M = 8,18, SD = 1.07) was seen in the evaluation dimension. The mean scores on the sub-dimensions and on the overall critical thinking scale were high. That is to say, gifted students had a high ability to think critically. 4.4 Analysis of Variance Critical Thinking Skills by Learning Styles ANOVA was conducted to define the relationship between preferred learning styles (LS) and critical thinking skills. The results are given in Table 4. Table 4: ANOVA Results for Critical Thinking Skills According to Learning Styles CTT LS N M SD Analysis a-Accommodators 36 7.06 1.01 b-Convergers 56 7.48 .83 c-Divergers 56 7.14 1.08 d-Assimilators 77 7.30 .96 a-Accommodators 36 7.69 1.19 b-Convergers 56 8.43 1.00 c-Divergers 56 8.11 .98 d-Assimilators 77 8.27 1.08 a-Accommodators 36 6.67 1.04 b-Convergers 56 7.30 .97 c-Divergers 56 6.89 1.17 d-Assimilators 77 7.23 .97 a-Accommodators 36 6.44 1.50 b-Convergers 56 8.55 1.42 c-Divergers 56 6.98 1.55 Evaluation Inferences Interpretation European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 Mean Square F(3. 221) p Tukey 1.714 1.814 .146 - 4.302 3.834 .011* .21 a<b.d 4.242 3.956 .009* .20 a<b.d 51.989 22.770 .000* .54 a.c<b.d 78 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS Explanation Self-regulation Entire d-Assimilators 77 8.32 1.54 a-Accommodators 36 7.11 1.32 b-Convergers 56 7.73 1.33 c-Divergers 56 6.93 1.36 d-Assimilators 77 7.95 1.19 a-Accommodators 36 27.58 4.71 b-Convergers 56 31.14 4.00 c-Divergers 56 29.63 3.73 d-Assimilators 77 31.09 3.71 a-Accommodators 36 10.42 1.24 b-Convergers 56 11.79 1.09 c-Divergers 56 10.95 1.14 d-Assimilators 77 11.68 1.06 14.065 8.492 .000* .32 a.c<b.d 125.264 7.975 .000* .27 a<b.d 19.734 15.698 .000* .42 a.c<b.d *p<.05 According to the results, there were no significant differences on the Analysis dimension (F= 1.814, p<.05) in terms of learning style. On the evaluation dimension, accommodators had lower scores (M= 7.69, SD=1.19) than convergers (M= 8.43, SD=1.00) and assimilators (M=8.27, SD=1.08) (F=3.834, p<.05). On the inferences dimension, accommodators (M= 6.67, SD=1.04) had lower scores than convergers (M= 7.30, SD=.97) and assimilators (M=7.23, SD=.97) (F=3.956, p<.05). On the interpretation dimension, students preferring accommodating (M= 6.44, SD=1.50) and diverging learning styles (M=6.98, SD= 1.55) had lower scores than students who preferred converging (M= 8.55, SD=1.42) and assimilating (M=8.32, SD=1.54) learning styles. On the Explanation dimension, accommodators (M= 7.11, SD=1.32) and divergers (M=6.93, SD= 1.36) had lower scores than convergers (M= 7.73, SD=1.33) and assimilators (M=7.95, SD=1.19) (F=8.492, p<.05). On the self-regulation dimension, students preferring accommodating learning styles (M=27.58, SD=4.71) had lower scores than students preferring converging (M=31.14; SD= 4.00) and assimilating (M=31.09; SD=3.71) learning styles. According to the overall scores on the critical thinking skills scale, convergers (M=11.79, SD=1.09) and assimilators (M=11.68, SD=1.06) had higher scores than accommodators (M=10.42, SD=1.24) and divergers (M=10. 95, SD=1.14) (F=15.698, p<.05). Analysis of the means on the interpretation dimension and overall scores on the critical thinking scale revealed a large effect size, for the rest of the dimensions the effect size was found to be at a medium level (Cohen, 1988). This result shows that learning styles had an important effect on critical thinking skills. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 79 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS 4.5 Correlation and Regression Analysis Correlation analysis was carried out to determine whether the gifted students critical thinking skills (both the overall score and the sub-dimension scores on the critical thinking scale) were associated with CE, AC, AE, and RO modes of learning. The results of the analysis are provided in Table 5. Table 5: Correlational Analysis 1 1-Analyses 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .43** 3-Inferences .42** .59** 4-Interpretation .32** .35** .30** 5-Explanation .39** .34** .31** .54** 6-Self-regulation .43** .47** .47** .22** .37** .63** .67** .64** .58** .65** .87** 8-CE .52** .35** .31** .41** .47** .46** .59** 9-RO .31** .36** .34** .40** .31** .38** .49** .52** 10-AC .38** .66** .56** .33** .38** .58** .68** .49** .46** 11-AE .27 .31 .43 .46** .55** .44** .48** .14* -.03 Entire ** .30 ** .38 ** .19 ** 12-AE-RO .05 .06 -.01 .06 13-CE-AC .05 -.05 -.08 -.02 -.08 -.11 -.12 -.10 Gender 12 1 2-Evaluation 7-Critical Thinking 11 ** .01 ** -.02 .04 -.14* -.21 ** .03 .19** -.04 .25** -.11 -.19 * .06 -.38** -.04 -.24** .05 -.04 .11 -.12 -.16* -.03 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Analysis of the results showed that there was a positive medium level of correlation between the scores taken from the sub-dimensions of the critical thinking scale and the learning styles inventory scores. The lowest correlation was found between the interpretation dimension of the critical thinking scale and the AE mode of learning (r=.19, p<.01). The highest correlation was found between the evaluation dimension of the critical thinking skills scale and AC (r=.66<.01). There was also a positive medium level of correlation with a significant meaningful difference among all variables (p<.01). There was no significant relationship between AE-AC, CE-AC and the sub dimensions of the critical thinking scale. There was a medium level correlation between overall critical thinking scores (r=.59, p<.05) and RO (r=.49, p<.05), AC (r=.68, p<.05), AE (r=.46, p<.05). As there was no autocorrelation between learning style row scores, a forced hierarchical regression analysis and stepwise method was applied to determine which variables served as predictors for the sub-dimensions of the critical thinking scale. In the analysis, the sub-dimensions of critical thinking were dependent variables. The European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 80 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS predictor variables included in the equation were as follows: the first block consisted of the demographic variable (gender as a dummy variable) and the second block consisted of the mode of learning followed by CE, AC, RO and AE. The results are presented in Table 6. Table 6: Regression Analysis Dependent Variable Model 1 Analysis Evaluation Model 2 Inferences Model 1 Model 1 Model 2 Interpretation Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Explanation Model 3 Model 1 Self-regulation Critical Thinking Entire Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Independent Variables CE CE AC AC AC AC AE CE CE RO Gender Gender CE Gender CE AC AC AC CE Gender Gender AC Gender AC CE Gender AC CE RO β .517 .439 .159 .656 .556 .487 .145 .406 .274 .205 -.213 -.241 .488 -.218 .412 .152 .581 .470 .226 -.190 -.108 .666 .091 .582 .365 -.172 .436 .308 .156 Std. Error .006 .006 .009 .007 .007 .008 .007 .011 .013 .018 .137 .119 .007 .120 .008 .013 .036 .040 .027 .134 .100 .009 -.152 .009 .006 .091 .010 .007 .009 t p R R2 df F 9.025 6.752 2.451 12.990 10.001 7.768 2.319 6.639 3.929 3.662 -3.249 -4.230 8.577 -.218 6.326 2.316 10.653 7.727 3.712 -2.891 -2.199 13.579 -3.393 9.408 7.165 -3.859 8.244 5.730 2.927 .000 .000 .015 .000 .000 .000 .021 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .021 .000 .000 .000 .004 .029 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .004 .517 .268 1, 223 81.454 .536 .280 2, 222 44.645 .656 .556 .571 .431 .310 .326 1, 223 1, 223 2, 222 168.742 100.024 17.748 .406 .165 1, 223 44.079 .462 .213 2, 222 29.970 .213 .532 .045 .283 1, 223 2, 222 11.115 43.772 .548 .300 3, 321 31.543 .581 .334 1, 223 113.481 .613 .370 2, 222 66.881 .190 .688 .036 .473 1, 223 2, 222 8.355 99.807 .757 .573 3, 221 98.741 .767 .589 4, 220 78.735 In the stepwise regression analysis, CE, AC, RO and AE served as the predictor variables. The dependent variables were Analysis, Evaluation, Inferences, Interpretation, Explanation, Self-regulation and the Overall Critical Thinking Scale. It was found that each mode made an independent contribution to the equation. The values were as follows ‚nalysis dimension, CE β = . dimension, ‚C β = . Inferences dimension, ‚C β = . Interpretation dimension, CE β = . = . and ‚C β = . and ‚C β = . and RO β = . and ‚E β = . Explanation dimension, CE β Self-regulation dimension, ‚C β = . European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 , Evaluation and CE β = . . 81 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS It was found that ‚C β = . , CE β = . and RO β = . predicted the Critical Thinking Scale entire score and it emerged that AC alone accounted for 46.2% of the variation in General Critical Thinking Skills. The other variables (CE and RO), collectively, accounted for an additional 9.3% of the variation in the Critical thinking. AC and CE were the best predictive of critical thinking. Gender, accepted as Dummy variable, was a predictive in Explanation dimension β= -0.22) and overall of the critical thinking scale β= -0.17). For other sub dimensions, gender had no contribution to the equation. 5. Conclusion and Discussion The purpose of this study is to identify whether mentally gifted students critical thinking skills differentiate according to their gender, duration of attendance to SAC and preferred learning styles, and which modes of learning (CE, AC, RO and AE) predict critical thinking skills. The results showed that the predominant style was assimilating, followed by converging, diverging and accommodating. Research conducted on different populations revealed varying results. Yenice (2012), Ghazivakili, et al. (2014) and Tulbure (2012) found that the predominant learning style were convergent followed by assimilating. In some studies, the predominant learning style was found to be diverging (Andreou, Papastavrou & Merkouris, 2014; Gyeong & Myung, 2008; Siriopoulos & Pomonis, 2006). Other studies found that the assimilating style was predominant (Yamazaki, Murphy & Puerta, 2002; Patterson, 1994, Tezci & Ataveseven, 2016), while yet others found the accommodating style to be predominant (Colucciello, 1999; Nastanski & Slick, 2011). Kolb (2005) defined the converging learning style as the predominant learning style in his study. Ross & Wright (1987) argued that since gifted students are different from non-gifted students, the teaching of gifted students should be different from the teaching of students attending general education, and that gifted students learning styles and cognitive characteristics are not the same as those of non-gifted students. In this study, the preferred learning style was found to be the assimilating style, followed by the converging and diverging styles in joint second place. In Turkey a number of studies ‚y, Padem & Eriş, G(ven & K(r(m, Tezci & ‚taseven, 2006) found that the preferred learning style was the assimilating style. These findings are contrary to Demirbaş and Demirkan s study in which they state that the dominant learning style is converging. On the other hand, in other studies related to students learning style preferences there were different results e.g. Colucciello, Cook, n.d.; Kolb, 1993; Kvan & Yuan, 2005; Mahmoud, 2012). Mahmoud, in a study European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 82 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS (2012, p. 409) based on research group characteristics (e.g. gifted or non-gifted, young or adult, teacher or student, student enrolled in department, and cultures indicated that, students preferred learning styles might be influenced by culture because of different socialization . Results from previous research e.g. ‛echer & Trowler, Kolb, , indicated that students learning styles changed according to the subject being studied. The results in the present study indicate that gender and duration of attendance at an SAC were not significant variables in preferred learning styles. Gender was not a significant variable in gifted student s preferred learning styles. Learning styles have stable characteristics and develop regardless of the subject being studied or the skill being mastered (Kolb, 1981; Nastanski & Slick, 2011; Ross & Wright, 1987). The finding about gender agrees with many studies Demirbaş & Demirkan, Myers & Dyer, 2006; Walsh & Hardy 1999; Yenice, 2012), but contradicts other studies (Ghazivakili, et al, 2014; Peng, Ma & Li, 2006; Philbin, Meier, Huffman & Boverie, 1995; Wehrwein, Lujan & DiCarlo, 2007). In the current study, gender was not a significant variable in the terms of learning styles, but it was found to be related to thinking skills. Gender served as a predictor of overall thinking skill disposition scores and for the explanation dimension. Gender was not a significant predictor for other sub dimensions of the critical thinking scale. Some studies (Rudd, Baker & Hoover, 2000; Torres & Cano, 1995b; Walsh & Hardy, 1999) indicate that gender was a significant variable in critical thinking skills, however. Nevertheless, other studies (Kettler, 2014; Myers & Dyer, 2006) of gifted students critical thinking skills found that there was no relationship between gender and critical thinking skills. In this study, gifted students critical thinking scores for both the overall score on the critical thinking scale and the scores on its sub dimensions were high. The highest mean in the sub dimensions was seen in the evaluation dimension. This implies that the gifted education program (SAC program) in Turkey is sufficient for developing gifted students critical thinking skills. The S‚C program contains learner-centered learning methods such as problem based learning, discussion, brain storming, individual and small group projects. These methods include innovative applications based on students' learning. Students have control over their own learning process and actively construct their own knowledge. Teaching and learning applications based on such approaches contribute to developing critical thinking skills (Ross & Wright, 1987; Salehi, 2007; Willingham, 2007). A study comparing gifted and non-gifted students by Kettler (2014) showed that gifted students had a higher capacity than non-gifted peers for critical thinking. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 83 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS The results of the present study indicate that there is a relationship between critical thinking and preferred learning styles except in the analysis dimension. There were significant differences between the four learning styles compared with the overall score of critical thinking disposition and the sub dimensions (evaluation, inferences, interpretation, explanation and self-regulation). The mean scores of the assimilating and converging groups were higher than those of the diverging and accommodating groups. In other words, the overall score of critical thinking and sub dimensions, except for analysis, were correlated with the assimilating and converging styles preferred by gifted students. Gifted students preferring assimilating and converging learning styles were better critical thinkers than divergers and accommodators. This finding is consistent with other studies conducted in different countries (Colucciello, 1999; Myers & Dyer, 2006; Suliman, 2006 .The results of the present study, however, indicate that students learning styles may play an important role in critical thinking. Learning style is relatively stable and develops according to the student's field of education (Wong & Nunan, 2011). When the sample group is considered to be cognitively highly able, it can be said that students with high cognitive capacity prefer mostly assimilating and diverging learning styles. Kolb asserted that there was a relationship between assimilating learning style and thinking skills. He also indicated that there were relationships between the organization of knowledge, building conceptual structures, testing ideas and theories and analyzing the data. Ghazivakili, et al (2014) found a significant difference between the evaluation , inductive reasoning and critical thinking skills according to students' thinking styles. In the present study, convergers had higher scores on the critical thinking scale than other learning styles. Wessel and Williams (2004) found similar results in their study of Master s entry-level students. Although, there are many studies (Durukan & Maden, 2010; Güven & Kürüm, 2007; Myers & Dyer, 2006; Torres & Cano, 1995; Yenice, 2012) indicating the relationships between learning style and critical thinking, there are some other studies (Ay, et. al., 2010; Rudd et al., 2000) that indicate the reverse. This discrepancy may be caused by how the sample group was selected and by the use of different tools to define learning styles. Kettler (2014) found a significant difference between gifted and non-gifted students. Another reason for the discrepancy in the results of these studies is that only Kettler's studied gifted students. Gifted students apply a wide variety of different strategies in problem solving, decision making, assessing their performances compared with their non-gifted peers (Kettler, 2014). Thus, gifted students' preferred learning styles may be different from those of nongifted peers. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 84 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS In this study, a positive correlation was found between the overall scores of critical thinking disposition, its sub-dimensions and modes of learning. The highest correlation was found between the entire critical thinking skills scale score and the AC mode of learning. The lowest correlation was seen between the analysis dimension of the critical thinking scale and the AE mode of learning. There was a medium level of positive correlation between all variables. Toress and Cano (1995), Pai and Eng (2013) found similar results. According to the regression results, gender was only a predictor variable in the explanation and the self-regulation dimensions and the overall score of critical thinking disposition. In the analysis dimension, the CE mode of learning was the most positive predictor of critical thinking disposition, followed by the AC mode of learning. The AC mode of learning was the only significant predictor in the assessment dimension of critical thinking disposition. In the inferences dimension, the AC mode of learning made a high contribution to variance. In the interpretation dimension, the CE and the RO modes of learning were predictive. In the explanation dimension, except for gender, the CE mode of learning was the best predictor, followed by the AC mode of learning. In the self-regulation dimension, the AC mode of learning was the best predictor variable, this was followed by the CE mode of learning. The AC mode of learning made the highest contribution to the variance for the critical thinking disposition except for gender, respectively the CE and RO modes of learning. The current study shows that although the most predictive mode of learning was AC, other modes of learning were predictive of the critical thinking disposition. According to Kolb (1984), learning styles are not fixed personal traits. Thus, teaching should be based on learning preferences rather than on learning styles and all modes of learning should be taken into consideration in the teaching and learning process. It is clear that gifted students have different cognitive characteristics. Although learning styles are affected by personal characteristics, environmental factors are also considered to be important factors in the development of learning styles (Kolb, 1981; 1984), and the design of teaching is an important influence on gifted students learning styles. A study by Mills supports Kolb's (1984) theory, in that analytical thinking, evaluation, critical thinking, clarity and flexibility are associated with the AC mode of learning Mills, . Kolb s learning theory was based on a four-stage learning cycle. In this respect, Kolb s experimental learning theory works on two levels a four-stage cycle of learning and four separate learning styles (Kolb, 1984). Yamazaki, et. al. (2002) indicated that the AC and CE mode of learning preferences were related to higher order thinking. Similarly, Suliman (2006) found a positive correlation between critical thinking skills and AC, CE modes of learning, and European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 85 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS a negative correlation between critical thinking skills and the CE and RO modes. In some studies (Lowy, 2013; Mahmoud, 2012; Nasrabady, et al. 2012) that used different learning styles scales, a relationship was found between critical thinking and learning styles. As learning styles offer a framework related to strong and weak aspects of students learning processes Kolb, , the ‚C, CE, RO and ‚E modes of learning should be taken into consideration in the teaching and learning process for developing gifted students critical thinking skills. The ‚C mode of learning was predictive for all critical thinking skills on the scale except for the interpretation dimension. In the current study, the AC mode of learning was the strongest and most prevalent predictor. Therefore, in an educational setting, gifted students should perhaps be frequently engaged in creating theories to explain observations. This mode is related to abstraction and analytical skills, which are important skills in devising a theory (Kolb, 1981). Gifted students like learning on their own and they will do just fine on their own (Ross & Wright, 1987, p. 50). This is evidence for their being independent learners and teachers should consider this characteristic when teaching them. Furthermore, developing students perceived efficacy and their regulation of self-aims should be taken into consideration during teaching and learning. The results of this study also indicate that the curriculum applied in gifted education centers should be based on activities. Purvis (2009) indicated that curriculum and instructional design had a great effect on teaching critical thinking. Thus, it may be helpful to consider students learning modes when designing curriculums and teaching and learning experiences. When the nature of the gifted students preferred learning styles are considered (Kolb, 1984), it seems clear that their learning environment should support their being independent learners and help them to control their own individual learning process. The curriculum should also be enriched in accordance with these findings. Teachers' consideration of learning styles during gifted students education will contribute to the development of gifted students' critical thinking skills. 6. Limitations of the Study The current study was conducted with only 225 participants. Furthermore, the participating students could not be divided into age categories because although students age was the same, their attendance duration at SACs varied. Comparing the results of general education students critical thinking skills with those of gifted students will help us to understand their learning styles and to create better learning opportunities for gifted students. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 86 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS 7. Future Direction Conducting similar studies with larger samples and comparing the results with studies of non-gifted students will give better results that will help to generalize the findings. Searching for other variables, such as socio-cultural background and their past learning experiences during the compulsory education period, and their effects on gifted students critical thinking skills will shed light both on how to understand and on how to develop their critical thinking processes. References 1. Alnesyan, A. (2012). Teaching and Learning Thinking Skills in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Case studies from seven primary schools. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of Exeter, Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/3693/AlnesyanA.pdf?s equence=1&isAllowed=y 2. Andreou, C., Papastavrou, E. & Merkouris, A. (2014). Learning styles and critical thinking relationship in baccalaureate nursing education: A systematic review. Nurse Education Today, 34(3), 362-371. 3. ‚şkar, P., & ‚kkoyunlu, ‛. . Kolb learning style inventory. Science and Education, 17(87), 37-47. 4. ‚y, Ş., Padem, S. & Eriş, H. M., . Technical teacher candidates' critical thinking dispositions and learning styles. I. National Congress on Curriculum and Instruction. Balıkesir University Necatibey Faculty of Education, Balıkesir, 13-15 May, 268-269. 5. Baymeyer, C. I. (2004). Learning styles and their impact on cross-cultural training: An international comparison in France, Germany and Quebec. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(6), 577-594 6. Becher, T. & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories. Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education/Open University Press. 7. ‛eşoluk, Ş. & 5nder, İ. . Investigation of teacher candidates' learning approaches, learning styles and critical thinking dispositions. Elementary Education Online, 9(2), 679 693 8. Boydak, A. (2008). Learning Styles 5ğrenme Stilleri . Istanbul ‛eyaz Publications. 9. Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. San Francisco, CA: Josey Bass. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 87 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS 10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. 11. Colucciello, M. (1999). Relationships between critical thinking dispositions and learning styles. Journal of Professional Nursing, 15(5), 294 301. 12. Conceicao, S. (2004). Learning style and critical thinking in an online course that usesconcept maps. Concepts maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology, Proc. of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Spain: Pamplona. Retrieved from: http://cmc.ihmc.us/papers/cmc2004-061.pdf 13. Cook, M. J. (in press). An exploratory study of learning styles as a predictor of college academic adjustment. Fairfield University Student Psychology Journal. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.196.5651&rep=rep1&ty pe=pdf 14. Costa, L. A. (2001). Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking. Melbourne, AU: ASCD. 15. Demir, M. K. (2006). Candidate teachers’ learning styles and teaching social science, Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının öğrenme stilleri ve sosyal bilgiler öğretimi . Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), 23, 28-37. 16. Demirbaş, O. O. & Demirkan, H. . Learning styles of design students and the relationship of academic performance and gender in design education. Learning and Instruction, 17, -345-359. 17. Demirhan, E., ‛eşoluk, Ş., & 5nder, İ. . The change in academic achievement and critical thinking disposition scores of pre-service science teachers over time. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences (WAJES), Special Issue, 403-406. 18. Dixon, F. A., Prater, K. A., Vine, H. M., Wark, J. M., Williams, T., Hanchon, T. & Shobe, C. (2004). Teaching to their thinking: A strategy to meet the criticalthinking needs of gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(1), 5676. 19. Dunn, R., Beaudry, J. S., & Klavas, A. (2002). Survey of research on learning styles. California Journal of Science Education, 2(2), 75-98. 20. Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1979). Using learning styles data to develop student prescriptions. In J.W. Keefe (ed.), Student learning styles diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 109-122). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 88 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS 21. Durukan, E. & Maden, S. (2010). A study on the evaluation of Turkish Pre-service teachers Critical thinking tendency, Dumlupinar University, Journal of Social Science, 28, 25-34. 22. Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (2006). Strategies and models for teachers: Teaching content and thinking skills (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education 23. Ekici, G. (2013). The analysis of teacher candidates learning styles in terms of gender and overall academic success according to Gregorc and Kolb learning style models. Education and Science, 38(167), 211-225. 24. Ennis, R. (2011). Critical thinking. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 26(2), 5-19. DOI: 10.5840/inquiryctnews201126215. 25. Ennis. R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking. Educational Leadership 4, 44-54. 26. Facione, A. P. (1990). The complete American Philosophical Association delphi research report. Millbrae, USA: The California Academic Press. 27. Facione, A. P. (2013). Critical thinking: What It is and why it counts, CA, Millbrae: Measured Reasons LLC, Hermosa Beach. Retrieved from http://go.roguecc.edu/sites/go.roguecc.edu/files/dept/nursing/PDF/Nursing/Criti cal%20Thinking-What%20it%20is%20and%20Why%20it%20Counts-to%20be%20linked%20to%20HSRT%20info.pdf 28. Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57-72. 29. Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289-306. 30. Forneris, S. G., & Peden‐Mc‚lpine, C. . Evaluation of a reflective learning intervention to improve critical thinking in novice nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 57(4), 410-421. 31. Gencel, I. E. . Kolb s experiential learning theory adapted to workbased learning styles inventory-III. Dokuz Eylul University Institute of Social Sciences Journal, 9(2), 120-139. 32. Ghazivakili, Z., Nia N. R., Panahi F., Karimi, M., Gholsorkhi, H. & Ahmadi, Z. (2014). The role of critical thinking skills and learning styles of university students in their academic performance. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 2(3), 95-102. 33. Gürleyük, G. C. (2008). Analysis of critical thinking disposition, problem solving abilities and academic achievement levels of primary school teacher candidates with respect to some variables. [Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 89 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri, problem çözme becerileri ve akademik başarı düzeylerinin incelenmesi]. Unpublished master s thesis. Zonguldak Karaelamas University, Social Science Institute, Zonguldak, Turkey. 34. G(ven, M. & K(r(m, D. . The relationship between teacher candidates learning styles and critical thinking dispositions (An Investigation on the Students in Faculty of Education in ‚nadolu University . 5ğretmen adaylarının öğrenme stilleri ile eleştirel d(ş(nme eğilimleri arasındaki ilişki , Elementary Education Online, 7(1), 53-70. Retrieved from http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr 35. Güven, M. & Kürüm, D. (2007). Teacher candidates' learning styles and critical thinking dispositions. Electronic Journal of Social Science, 6(21), 60-90. Retrieved from http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/esosder/issue/view/5000006981. 36. Güven, M. & Kürüm, D. (2006). Relationship between learning styles and critical thinking: A general review. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 7590. 37. Gyeong, J. A., Myung, S. Y. (2008). Critical thinking and learning styles at the baccalaureate nursing program in Korea. Contemporary Nurse, 29(1), 100 109. 38. Hunt, D. E. (1987). Beginning with ourselves in practice, Theory and human affairs. Cambridge MA: Brookline Books. 39. İşlekeller, ‚. . Achievements of students of above average and average intelligence in Turkish language classes focusing on critical thinking skills, and the effect of those classes on their critical thinking levels and attitudes [Eleştirel düşünme becerilerini temel alan Türkçe öğretiminin üstün ve normal zihin düzeyindeki öğrencilerin erişi, eleştirel düşünme düzeylerine ve tutumlarına etkisi], Unpublished M‛‚ Thesis. İstanbul University, Social Science Institute, Istanbul, Turkey. 40. Kenney, J. (2013). Fostering critical thinking skills: Strategies for use with intermediate gifted readers. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 41(2), 28-40. 41. Kettler, T. (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school students: Comparing identified gifted and general education student performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(2), 127 136. 42. Kim, M. (2016). A Meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 102 116. 43. Kolb, D. (2015). Experimental learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey, Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc. 44. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 45. Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. The Modern American College, 1, 232-255. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 90 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS 46. Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb. D. A. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory-version 3.1 technical specifications. Boston, MA: Hay Group Transforming Learning 47. Koob, J. J., & Funk, J. . Kolb s learning style inventory Issues of reliability and validity. Research on social work practice, 12(2), 293-308. 48. Kurnaz, A. (2014). Activities for teaching critical thinking [Eleştirel düşünme öğretimi etkinlikleri]. Konya Eğitim ‚kademi Kitabevi. 49. Kvan, T., & Yunyan, J. . Students learning styles and their correlation with performance in architectural design studio. Design Studies, 26, 19-34. 50. Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 51. Lowy, N. (2013). Learning styles, critical thinking aptitudes, and immersion learning in physician assistant students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs) Paper 1920. 52. Mahapoonyanont, N. (2010). Factors related to critical thinking abilities; a metaanalysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 986-990. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.272. 53. Mahmoud, H. G. (2012). Critical thinking dispositions and learning styles of baccalaureate nursing students and its relation to their achievement. International Journal of Learning and Development, 2(1), 398-415. 54. McGrane, P. A. & Sternberg, R. J. (1992). Discussion: Fatal vision The failure of the schools in teaching children to think. In C. Collins & J. N. Mangieri (Eds.), Teaching Thinking: An Agenda For The 21st Century, (pp. 333-344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 55. McGregor, D. (2007). Developing thinking; Developing learning. New York, USA: Open University Press. 56. McKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussion. Educause Quarterly, 4, 38-41. 57. Meyers, C. (1986). Teaching students to think critically. San Francisco, CA: JoseyBass. 58. Mills, C. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 272 281. 59. Ministery of National Education [MNE] (2005). 2015-2016 A guide for determining gifted students to Science and Art Centers [Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi Öğrenci Tanılama Klavuzu]. Retrieved from http://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2015_ 11/19105341_rencitanlamaklavuzu.pdf. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 91 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS 60. Ministry of National Education [MNE] (2015). Directive for science and art centers [Bilim ve sanat merkezleri yönergesi]. Retrieved from http://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb _iys_dosyalar/2015_09/18101802_bilimvesanatmerkezleriynergesi.pdf 61. Myers, B. E. & Dyer, J. E. (2006). The influence of student learning style on critical thinking skill. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(1), 43-52. 62. Nagappan, R. (2001). Teaching in higher-order skills in Malaysia. Journal of South Asian Education, 2(1), 1-22. 63. NAGC (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index2.aspx?id=6404 64. Nair, S. & Ngang, T. K. . Exploring parents and teachers views of primary pupils thinking skills and problem solving skills. Creative Education, 3(1), 30-36. 65. Nasrabadi, H. A., & Mousavi, S. (2012). The Contribution of Critical Thinking Attitude and Cognitive Learning Styles in Predicting Academic Achievement of Medical University s Students. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 12(4), 285-296. 66. Nasrabadi, H. M., Mousavi, S. & Kave-Farsan, Z. (2012). The contribution of critical thinking attitude and cognitive learning styles in predicting academic achievement of medical university s students. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 12(4), 285-296. 67. Nastanski, M., & Slick, T. (2011). Learning styles and the online classroom: Implications for business students. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 5(10), 29-50. 68. Newmann, F. M. (1990). Higher order thinking in teaching social studies. A rationale for the assessment of classroom thoughtfulness. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(1), 41-56. 69. Pai, H-C. & Eng, C-J. (2013). The Relationships among critical thinking disposition, caring behavior, and learning styles in student nurses. Open Journal of Nursing, 3, 249-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojn.2013.32034 70. Parks, S. (2009). Teaching analytical and critical thinking skills in gifted education. In Karnes, F. A. & Bean, S. M. (Eds.) Methods and Materials for Teaching the Gifted (pp. 261-300). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. 71. Patterson, G. E., (1994). Establishing a correlationship between learning styles and critical thinking skills in baccalaureate nursing students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Columbia University Teachers College. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/304118271/fulltextPDF/13C19F2614233F3EE AB/3?accountid=36246. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 92 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS 72. Peng, X., Ma, S. H. & Li, X. M. (2006). A study on the cognitive styles and gender difference of normal university students in China. Journal of Health Psychology, 14(3), 299-301. 73. Philbin, M., Meier, E., Huffman, S., & Boverie, P. (1995). A survey of gender and learning styles. Sex Roles, 32(7-8), 485-494. 74. Purvis, C. A. (2009). Factors that influence the development of critical thinking skills in associate degree nursing students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. USA: University of Georgia, Athens. 75. Rayneri, L. J., Gerber, B. L., & Wiley, L. P. (2006). The relationship between classroom environment and the learning style preferences of gifted middle school students and the impact on levels of performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 104-118. 76. Reis, S. M. & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152-170. 77. Ritchhart, R. & Perkins, N. D. (2005). Learning to think: The challenges of teaching thinking. In K. Hoyak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. (pp. 775-802). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 78. Roberts, R. D., ‛eh, H. C. & Stankov, L. . Hick s law, competing-task performance, and intelligence. Intelligence, 12, 111-130. 79. Rogers, K. B. (1986). Do the gifted think and learn differently? A review of recent research and its implications for instruction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(1), 17-39. 80. Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382 396. 81. Ross, E. P. & Wright, J. (1987). Matching teaching strategies to the learning styles of gifted readers. Reading Horizons, 28(1), 49-56. 82. Rudd, R., Baker, M. & Hoover, T. (2000). Undergraduate agriculture student learning styles and critical thinking abilities: Is there a relationship? Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(3), 2-12. 83. Rudd, R. D. & Baker, M. T. (2000). Dimensions of critical thinking. The Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 50(1), 133-138. 84. Salehi, Sh. . Nursing students preferred learning styles. Journal of Medical Education, 11(3-4), 85-89. 85. Schenck, J. & Cruickshank, J. (2015). Evolving Kolb: Experiential education in the age of neuroscience, Journal of Experiential Education, 38(1), 73 95. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 93 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS 86. Sharma P. (2011). A study of learning-thinking style of secondary school students in relation to their academic achievement. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 2(4), 115-23. 87. Siriopoulos, C. & Pomonis, G. A. (2006). A comparative analysis of economics graduates' learning styles and critical thinking skills. Social Science Research Network, 1-37. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.976741. 88. Smith, D. M. & Kolb, D.A. (1984). Users’ guide for the learning style inventory: A manual for teachers and trainers. Boston: MC Ber. 89. Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Teaching critical thinking: Eight easy ways to fail before you begin. The Phi Delta Kappan, 68(6), 456-459. 90. Suliman, W. A. (2006). Critical thinking and learning styles of students in conventional and accelerated programmes. International Nursing Review, 53(1), 73-79. 91. Svinicki, M.D. & Dixon, M. N. (1987). The Kolb model modified for classroom activities. Collage Teaching, 135(4), 141-146. 92. Van Tassel-Baska, V. (1992). Planning effective curriculum for gifted learners. Bellaire St., Denver: Love Publishing. 93. Tezci, E. & Ataseven, N. (2016). Effects of learning style and demographic factors on learning strategies. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 6(1), 211- 225. 94. Thomson, D. L. . ‛eyond the classroom walls Teachers and students perspectives on how online learning can meet the needs of gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 662 712. 95. Torres, R. M. & Cano, J. (1995). Critical thinking as influenced by learning style. Journal of Agricultural Education, 36(4), 55-62. 96. Toth, M. H. (1996). An experimental approach in evaluating instructional strategies to teach critical thinking to freshman nursing students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Widener University, Chester, Pennsylvania. 97. Tulbure, C. (2012). Investigating the relationships between teaching strategies and learning styles in higher education. Acta Didaactica Napocensia, 5(1), 65-74. 98. Tuttle, F. B., Becker, A. L. & Sousa, J. A. (1988). Characteristics and identification of gifted and talented students. Washington, D.C: NEA Professional Library. 99. Walsh, C. M. & Hardy, R. C. (1999). Dispositional differences in critical thinking related to gender and academic major. Journal of Nursing Education, 38(4), 149155. 100. Wehrwein, E. A., Lujan, H. L. & DiCarlo, S. E. (2007). Gender differences in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology students. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(2), 153-157. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 94 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS 101. Wessel, J. & Williams, R. (2004). Critical thinking and learning styles of students in a problem-based, master's entry-level physical therapy program. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 20(2), 79-89. 102. Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 37, 8-19. 103. Wong, L. L. C. & Nunan, D. (2011). The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System, 39, 144-163. 104. Yamazaki, Y., Murphy, V. & Puerta, M. (2002). Learning styles and learning skills in higher education: an empirical study of their relationship using Kolb’s experiential learning theory. Department of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University. Retrieved from https://weatherhead.case.edu/departments/organizationalbehavior/workingpapers/wp-03-03.pdf. 105. Yenice N. (2012). A review on learning styles and critically thinking disposition of pre-service science teachers in terms of miscellaneous variables. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching, 13(2), 2-31. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 95 Yalçın Dilekli THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS Creative Commons licensing terms Author(s) will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for members of the community to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of Education Studies shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflicts of interest, copyright violations and inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated into the research work. All the published works are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 4 │ 2017 96